A landmark Supreme Court ruling opens the door to greater public accountability in end-of-life cases, allowing doctors involved in such decisions to be named. The decision comes after a high-profile dispute over life support treatment for two children who died under care.
Ruling Opens Door to Public Accountability in End-of-Life Cases
The Supreme Court has ruled that doctors involved in end-of-life cases can be named, marking a significant shift towards greater public accountability. This decision comes after the parents of two children who died under life support treatment disputes expressed their desire to ‘tell their story.‘
End-of-life decisions refer to choices made by individuals, families, or healthcare providers regarding the care and treatment of a person nearing death.
These decisions can include withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, such as ventilators or feeding tubes.
According to a study, 90% of Americans prefer to die at 'home' , but only 27% are able to do so.
In the United States, advance directives, such as living wills and durable powers of attorney, can help ensure that patients' wishes are respected.
The Case of Isaiah Haastrup and Zainab Abbasi
Isaiah Haastrup, aged 12 months, and six-year-old Zainab Abbasi were at the center of a high-profile dispute over life support treatment. During the proceedings, court orders were put in place to bar doctors involved in their care from being publicly named indefinitely.
Isaiah suffered catastrophic brain damage after being deprived of oxygen at birth and died in March 2018. His father, Lanre Haastrup, stated that the decision would benefit the public at large, saying ‘The court has emphatically stated no doctor can hide.‘
Zainab’s parents, Rashid and Aliya Abbasi, had raised concerns over the care at Newcastle’s Great North Children’s Hospital. Their daughter was born with a rare and profoundly disabling inherited neurodegenerative condition and died in September 2019.
A Shift Towards Greater Accountability
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from two trusts involved in the case, allowing clinicians to be named. The court ruled that weight can be given to protecting medical staff against unfounded accusations and abuse, but also acknowledged that the treatment of patients is a matter of legitimate public interest.
Lords Reed and Briggs stated: ‘Weight can be given to the importance of protecting the medical and other staff of public hospitals against unfounded accusations and consequent abuse. However, the court should also bear in mind that the treatment of patients in public hospitals is a matter of legitimate public interest.‘
The justices also declined an application from the trusts to continue the injunction for a further 21 days, ruling that the doctors’ rights could not be asserted on their behalf and that the claim had to be brought by the clinicians themselves.
